1. Property dispute — Writ petition pending before High Court — Application for interim protection against construction and creation of third-party rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Abbas Ansari – Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No.61 of 2025 in SLP(C) No.25151 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Awstika Das, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Madhav Deepak, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Awstika Das, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Madhav Deepak, Adv.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo at a disputed site to prevent irreversible loss until the High Court hears the matter.
Headnote:(A) No specific laws or sections cited in the judgment.
(B) The court emphasized the importance of interim protection for petitioners in similar situations.
(C) The petitioner alleged construction commenced at a disputed site without interim protection.
(D) The court directed maintenance of status quo at the site until the High Court hears the matter. (E) The court expressed hope for an early listing of the matter. (F) The final decision directed the authorities and petitioner to maintain status quo. (G) Parties involved: Petitioner and Authorities. (H) No dissenting opinions were present.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges failure of the High Court to grant interim protection despite directions, while similarly situated petitioners received such protection. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that the commencement of construction and potential creation of third-party rights could lead to irreversible loss for the petitioner. (Para 5 )
4. Status quo may be ordered to prevent irreversible loss when a matter is pending before a lower court and interim protection is sought. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Direction to maintain status quo at the site until the matter is heard by the High Court. (Para 6 , 8 )
6. Under what circumstances may a court direct the maintenance of status quo?
A court may direct the maintenance of status quo when it is averred that construction has commenced and the creation of third-party rights is likely to cause irreversible loss to the petitioner. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Will a court comment on the procedural delays of a lower court without a formal report?
The court may decline to express an opinion on why a lower court failed to hear a matter if it has not issued notice or obtained a report from the lower court's registry. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. The instant application has been moved in furtherance of the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by this Court, in terms whereof SLP(C) Diary No.47206/2024 was disposed of after taking notice of the fact that the Writ Petition (C) No.661/2021 filed by the petitioner along with his brother (proforma respondent) was pending before the High Court and was ordered to be listed before a Division Bench along with other similar matters.
2. It was in this backdrop that we requested the Division Bench of the High Court to take up the application for interim stay moved by the petitioner and decide the same at the earliest and in any case on 04.11.2024 when the matter was listed.
3. The instant application has been moved, inter alia, alleging that after the order passed by this Court, the writ petition has been listed on several occasions, but no effective hearing has taken place. Consequently, no interim protection has been granted to the petitioner, though all other similarly situated writ petitioners have been protected against dispossession/demolition/fresh construction at the disputed site.
4. Since we have not issued notice and have also not obtained report from the Registry of the High Court, we are not inclined to express any opinion as to what were the circumstances and why the petitioner’s writ petition could not be taken up for hearing by the Bench, though it was listed from time to time.
5. Since the petitioner has specifically averred that the Authorities have commenced construction at Plot No.93 located in village Jiamau, Lucknow, which they claimed to be under their ownership and if third party rights are created, it is likely to cause irreversible loss to the petitioner(s).
6. We dispose of this miscellaneous application with a direction to the Authorities as well as the petitioner to maintain status quo at the site till the matter is heard by the High Court.
7. We are still hopeful that the matter shall be listed before the appropriate Bench of the High Court at the earliest.
8. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar General/Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, who in turn are directed to bring the order of this Court to the notice of the Bench where the matter is listed. The Division Bench may be apprised of the request made by us in paragraph 6 of our order dated 21.10.2024.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
